Yes, EOS is on board.
>________________________________
> From: Jean-Claude Guédon <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Friday, 13 July 2012, 15:19
>Subject: [GOAL] Re: Reaching for the Reachable
>
>
>Thank you, Stevan, for this useful summary.
>
>Now remains the question: how do we multiply mandates and how do we implement
>them?
>
>Peter has suggested a high-level meeting to create momentum. I support the
>high-level meeting idea and provided some hypotheses about it that are aimed
>at boosting the green road. Keith, a member of the board on EOS, is on board.
>
>Who else is on board?
>
>Is EOS on board?
>
>Action, please!
>
>Jean-Claude
>
>
>
>
>Le vendredi 13 juillet 2012 à 09:21 -0400, Stevan Harnad a écrit :
>FOR THE PERPLEXED GOAL READER:
>
>>
>>
>For the perplexed reader who is wondering what on earth all this to and fro on
>GOAL is about:
>
>>
>>
>1. Gratis Open Access (OA) means free online access to peer-reviewed journal
>articles.
>
>>
>>
>2. Libre OA means free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles +
>certain re-use rights (often CC-BY).
>
>>
>>
>3. Green OA means OA provided by authors self-archiving their peer-reviewed
>final drafts free for all online (either in the author's institutional
>repository or website or in an institution-external central repository)
>
>>
>>
>4. Gold OA means OA provided by authors publishing in OA journals that provide
>free online access to their articles (Gratis or Libre), often at the cost of
>an author publication fee.
>
>>
>>
>5. Global OA today stands at about 20% of yearly journal article output,
>though this varies by discipline, with some higher (particle physics near
>100%) and some lower (chemistry among the lowest).
>
>>
>>
>6. About two thirds of the global 20% OA is Green and one third is Gold.
>Almost all of it is Gratis rather than Libre.
>
>>
>>
>7. Institutions and funders that mandate Green OA have much higher Green OA
>rates (70%+), but only if they have effective Green OA mandates -- and only a
>tiny proportion of the world's institutions and funders mandate OA as yet have
>Green OA mandates at all.
>
>>
>>
>8. Ineffective Green OA mandates are the ones that require self-archiving only
>if and when the publisher endorses self-archiving: 60% of journals endorse
>immediate Green OA self-archiving; 40% ask for embargoes of varying in length
>from 6-12 months to 5 years or indefinitely.
>
>>
>>
>9. Effective Green OA mandates (ID/OA: Immediate-Deposit/Optional-Access) are
>the ones that require immediate deposit of all articles, but if the publisher
>has an OA embargo, access to the deposit can be set as "Closed Access" during
>the allowable embargo period (preferably no more than 6 months).
>
>>
>>
>10. During any embargo, the institutional repository has an automated
>email-eprint-request button that allows users to request a copy for research
>purposes with one click, and allows the author to comply with one click. (This
>is not OA but "Almost-OA".)
>
>>
>>
>11. The rationale for ID/OA + the Almost-OA button is to ensure that 100% of
>papers are immediately deposited and accessible for research purposes, not
>just the 60% that have publisher endorsement.
>
>>
>>
>12. The expectation is that once ID/OA is mandated globally by 100% of
>institutions and funders, not only will it provide 60% immediate-OA plus 40%
>Almost-OA, but it will hasten the end of OA embargoes, as the power and
>utility of OA become evident, familiar and indispensable to all researchers,
>as authors and users.
>
>>
>>
>There are additional details about optimal mandates. (Deposit should be
>designated the sole procedure for submitting publications for institutional
>performance review, and funders should mandate convergent institutional
>deposit rather than divergent institution-external deposit.)
>
>>
>>
>And the further expectation is that once Gratis Green OA is mandated by
>institutions and funders globally, it will hasten the advent of Libre OA
>(CC-BY) and Gold OA.
>
>>
>>
>All the frustration and complaints being vented in the recent GOAL postings
>are with the lack of OA. But frustration will not bring OA. Only mandates
>will. And the optimal mandate is ID/OA, even if it does not confer instant
>global OA.
>
>>
>>
>First things first. Don't let the unreachable best get in the way of the
>reachable better. Grasp what is already within reach.
>
>>
>>
>Stevan Harnad
>
>>
>>
>
>>
>On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 8:08 AM, Peter Murray-Rust <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Jan Velterop <[email protected]> wrote:
>Stevan may well be right that the repository of the U of Liege (ORBi) contains
>3,620 chemistry papers. But apart from posters, most deposits of articles
>published in peer-reviewed journals, and even theses, are marked "restricted
>access" and not accessible to me, and 'libre' access seems completely out of
>scope. So if this is the best example of a successful OA repository, Peter
>Murray-Rust can be forgiven for getting the impression that compliance is
>essentially zero, in terms of Open Access.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>
>>>I am generalizing from a sample of one in Liege (ORBIS) . This says:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>>>
>Reference: Ivanova, T. et al - (2012) - Preparation and characterisation of Ag
>incorporated Al2O3 nanocomposite films obtained by sol-gel method
>[ handle:2268/127219 ]
>
>>>
>>>
>Document(s) requested:
>Tanya-CRT47-579.pdf - Publisher postprint
>
>>>
>>>
>The desired document is not currently available on open access. Nevertheless
>you can request an offprint from the author(s) through the form below. If your
>request is accepted you will receive by email a link allowing you access to
>the document for 5 days, 5 download attempts maximum.
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>The University expressly draws your attention to the fact that the electronic
>copy can only be used for the strict purposes of illustration and teaching and
>academic and scientific research, as long as it is not for the purposes of
>financial gain, and that the source, including the author’s name is
>indicated.
>>>
>>>
>
>>>So If I am a small business creating science-based work I am not allowed the
>>>"Open Access" from Liege. If I represent a patient group I am not allowed
>>>this material. If I am in government making eveidence-based policy I am not
>>>allowed it. It is the pernicious model that only academics need and can have
>>>access to the results of scholarship.
>>>
>>>As I have said before University repositories seem to delight in the process
>>>of restricting access.
>>>
>>>No wonder that no-one will use this repo. All it seems to do is mail the
>>>author and I can do that anyway (presumably if the author leaves the uni
>>>then the email goes nowhere).
>>>
>>>In today's market any young reseacher will use #icanhazpdf instead. I am not
>>>condoning #icanhazpdf but I am far more sympathetic to it than repos.
>>>
>>>But I have been told to shut up and I will. I'm slightly disappointed that
>>>no-one is prepared to consider the possibility we should do something
>>>different.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Peter Murray-Rust
>>>Reader in Molecular Informatics
>>>Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
>>>University of Cambridge
>>>CB2 1EW, UK
>>>+44-1223-763069
>>>
>>>
>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>GOAL mailing list
>>>[email protected]
>>>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>>>
>>>
>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list [email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>_______________________________________________
>GOAL mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
